Next Article in Journal
High-Frequency Surface Insulation Strength with Nanoarchitectonics of Disiloxane Modified Polyimide Films
Next Article in Special Issue
Novel Biodegradable Poly (Lactic Acid)/Wood Leachate Composites: Investigation of Antibacterial, Mechanical, Morphological, and Thermal Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Applying Box–Behnken Design for Formulation and Optimization of PLGA-Coffee Nanoparticles and Detecting Enhanced Antioxidant and Anticancer Activities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Failure Criteria on Plywood under Bending
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/polym14010145
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mycelium-Based Composites in Art, Architecture, and Interior Design: A Review

by
Maciej Sydor
1,*,
Agata Bonenberg
2,
Beata Doczekalska
3 and
Grzegorz Cofta
3
1
Department of Woodworking and Fundamentals of Machine Design, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
2
Institute of Interior Design and Industrial Design, Faculty of Architecture, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Chemical Wood Technology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(1), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010145
Submission received: 7 December 2021 / Revised: 28 December 2021 / Accepted: 28 December 2021 / Published: 31 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eco-Friendly Wood Composites: Design, Characterization and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mycelium-based composites (MBCs) have attracted growing attention due to their role in the development of eco-design methods. We concurrently analysed scientific publications, patent documents, and results of our own feasibility studies to identify the current design issues and technologies used. A literature inquiry in scientific and patent databases (WoS, Scopus, The Lens, Google Patents) pointed to 92 scientific publications and 212 patent documents. As a part of our own technological experiments, we have created several prototype products used in architectural interior design. Following the synthesis, these sources of knowledge can be concluded: 1. MBCs are inexpensive in production, ecological, and offer a high artistic value. Their weaknesses are insufficient load capacity, unfavourable water affinity, and unknown reliability. 2. The scientific literature shows that the material parameters of MBCs can be adjusted to certain needs, but there are almost infinite combinations: properties of the input biomaterials, characteristics of the fungi species, and possible parameters during the growth and subsequent processing of the MBCs. 3. The patent documents show the need for development: an effective method to increase the density and the search for technologies to obtain a more homogeneous internal structure of the composite material. 4. Our own experiments with the production of various everyday objects indicate that some disadvantages of MBCs can be considered advantages. Such an unexpected advantage is the interesting surface texture resulting from the natural inhomogeneity of the internal structure of MBCs, which can be controlled to some extent.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Fungi can use many types of by-products as substrates for growth. When mycelium penetrates a substrate, it acts as a natural self-assembling binder, holding a loose mixture in a monolithic form, creating a solid composite of biopolymers cellulose matrix and very dense chitin reinforcement. Mycelium can fill the volume with a very dense network; one gram of soil can contain up to 600 km of hyphae [1]. The mycelium growth pattern is related to the availability of food resources, water and environmental conditions, which constantly modify the network topology. The adaptive behaviour of fungi allows them to cope with various ephemeral resources, competition, damage, and predation in a completely different manner from multicellular plants or animals [2]. In nature, the organic matter for fungal growth comes from the remains of plant and animal organisms and their metabolites. In industrial conditions, various types of biological post-consumer wastes and by-products such as wood, straws, husks, chaws, and bagasse can be used as substrates for mycelial growth [3].
Mycelium-based composites are used in construction, packaging, and in the production of various types of products. MBCs are also well suited to applied arts. Philip Ross is the author of the “Hy-Fi” tower-pavilion presented at the “MoMA’s PS1” exhibition in 2014 [4], in this building structure he combined wooden beams with MBC, thus compensating for the low mechanical strength of MBC. The artist is the author of several patent applications and scientific publications in this field [5]. Pascal Leboucq designed “The Growing Pavilion” constructed by Company New Heroes in 2019, a temporary event space at Dutch Design Week constructed with panels grown from mushroom mycelium supported on a timber frame. The Redhouse Architecture Bureau (Cleveland, OH, USA) promotes the use of wood construction waste, such as panels and window frames, which can be defragmented and re-bonded with mycelium and then used to build houses [6]. In Indonesia, Mycotech, Block Research Group and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology built a prototype spatial structure called “MycoTree” made of various biocomposites, with the addition of sugar cane and cassava root waste (2017) [7]. At Milan Design Week 2019, Carlo Ratti presented an installation entitled “Round Garden”, built from a sequence of arches made of MBCs. The installation fits into the natural context and surroundings [8]. Various artists and designers have designed different mycelium-based products: e.g., Aniela Hoitink 2016 textiles, Erica Klarenbeek 2013 3D printed furniture, Jonas Edvard and Sebastian Cox 2013 lamps, Kristel Peeters and Mycofabrication 2009 shoes. Think tank Terreform ONE and non-profit organization Genspace have developed a series of seating furniture made of Mycoform (2016) [9]. Mycelium is an alternative to wood dust in 3D printing [10]. A group of British architects Blast Studio and Bio-Digital Matter Lab managed to 3D print a column of mycelium-based materials (2018) [4]. Team BioBabes printed 3D MBCs objects using polylactic acid to act as a temporary mycelium scaffold (“Hyper Articulated Myco-Morphs” 2016–2017) [11]. A number of cultural organizations research and popularize MBCs, like Futurium in series of exhibition “Mind the Fungi. Art & Design Residencies” in Berlin since 2019 [12], or Somerset House in series of cultural events “Mushrooms: The Art, Design and Future of Fungi” in London 2020 [13].
Mycelium-based composites have been reported as inventions since at least 2007 and are also the subject of scientific research. Taking into account the great potential and numerous advantages of such a material, it was considered appropriate to review the scientific literature and patent documents supplementing these sources of knowledge with our own experience in the field of manufacturing interior furnishings made of this type of interesting biocomposite. The main aim of the article is to synthesize information from the scientific literature, patent documents, and own experience to identify barriers and possibilities for an effective implementation of mycelium-based composites in industrial manufacturing, especially when applied to decorative objects used in architectural interior design of apartments.

2. Results of the Literature Review

At least 92 research papers have been published on mycelium-based composites (72 original articles [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85], one being a hybrid of original and review articles [86], and 19 review articles [87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. The oldest article is from 2012 [14], the newest is from November, 2021 [81]. The analyzed articles are assigned to 19 subject areas. The two main research areas are “Materials Science” and “Engineering” (Figure 1).
Over 130 different “author keywords” are used in the articles. Associations and frequency of co-existence for 20 most frequently used “author keywords” are shown in Figure 2.
In the Figure 2, the frequency of occurrence of the keywords varies with time in color. VOSviewer was used; minor editorial changes have been made in the keywords: singular and plural forms of nouns (“fungus” = “fungi”, “material” = “materials” etc.), the notation (“bio-composites” = “biocomposites” etc.), synonyms (“fungal mycelium” = “mycelium”, “composite materials” = “composites”, “bio-based composites” = “biocomposites” and “manufacturing process” = “manufacture”). Yellow color, turning red, indicates keywords used in the most recent articles. As can be seen, these are the words “sustainable development”, “scanning electron microscopy”, “construction industry” and “agricultural robots”. This shows the changing research interests in this field.
The five most cited articles according to Scopus are summarized in Table 1.
There are different purposes for the research carried out. The vast majority of research focuses on finding out how to properly shape the constructional properties of the material. The objectives and results of selected research works on mycelium-based composites are collected in Table 2.
In 2016–2021, at least 20 scientific review articles were also published. The most important of these articles are listed in Table 3.

3. Results of Patents Documents Analysis

A granted patent is an administrative decision: area and time limited, issued by the patent office, it provides protection for a feasible, new, non-obvious and potentially profitable solution. The basis for such a decision is a patent application, which requires an unambiguous description of the essence of the invention. The patent application also provides a priority date, i.e., the date of disclosure of the invention. The priority date can, for example, be the presentation of the invention at a trade fair or the publication of a description of the invention. Most often, however, it is the date when the invention is filed with the patent office. Some patent applications become granted patents. Inventions considered profitable by their owners are filed in many patent jurisdictions around the world. Subsequent applications may differ slightly from their prototypes in terms of content, the differences result mainly from the refinement of descriptions, as well as the rejection of some patent claims by various patent offices. The main patent documents are patent applications and granted patents from many patent offices, they form the so-called patent families. Thus, each patent family describes one invention, the date of its creation is given by its first application.
Patent documents were searched on the basis of the following keywords: mycelium; mycological; fungi; biopolymers; biomaterials; biocomposites. These words were searched for in the “TAC” sections of patent documents (TAC = title OR abstract OR claim). Searches were made in the International Patent Classification areas: C08*, C12N*, B27N* B32B* oraz B32B*, and the list of documents was reviewed, limiting it to issues related to the production of plastics such as foams, boards and blocks used in construction, furniture, the automotive industry, as packaging and as artistic products. Thus, documents dealing with the production of woven fabric, i.e., all non-structural materials used in the manufacturing technique, were omitted. Publicly available databases and analytical tools such as Google Patents, The Lens were used, and the results of queries were exported to MS Excel for further analysis.
As a result of the analysis, 212 patent documents were identified: 153 patent applications, 55 patents granted on the basis of some of these applications, and additionally 2 amended applications, 1 amended patent and 1 patent of addition. They constitute 67 extended families, and thus describe 67 different technological and product inventions related to mycelium-based composites. The oldest document was received by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on 12 December 2007 [106], while the last of the analysed documents was on 9 April 2021 [107]. The annual numbers of patent applications, according to the years of their publication, are shown in Figure 3.
Data for 2021 is incomplete, not all patent documents from this year are indexed in databases. The data on the annual number of patents presented in Figure 3 show a significant increase in patent applications in the last two years.
There are significant 9 people and organizations among the owners of patent documents. This is shown in Figure 4 as shares in overall number of patent documents.
The owner of the largest number of patent documents is Ecovative Design LCC (Albany, NY, USA), which has 27% of industrial property in this area (58 documents). Other persons and institutions affiliating many documents are: Eben Bayer and Mcintyre Gavin (both related to Ecovative Design LCC) and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, MI, USA) (17 documents each), also Ford Global Technologies LLC and Automotive Components Holdings LLC, both owned by Ford Motor Company headquartered in Dearborn, MI, USA (13 and 12 documents, respectively).
The analysis of patent documents shows 9 main countries related with the mycelium-based composites (Figure 5). The largest number of affiliated patent documents is in the USA. However, the latest documents are affiliated in Germany, Belgium and China.
In 29 patent families there is at least one granted patent, these families are summarized in Table 4, presenting one selected patent from each such patents family.
More than 200 patent documents make it impossible to “intuitively” indicate the key inventions in the field of mycelium-based composites. Undoubtedly, the first patent application (US 2008/0145577 A1, “Method for producing grown materials and products made thereby” [106], filing date 12 December 2007) is important, but there are likely to be other influential inventions in this field. In the 2019 scientific article on the review of wood screw patents [136], the following criteria were proposed for the identification of important patents:
  • The size of the patent family—the assumption: “only an invention with high application potential can be submitted for protection in many patent offices because the patent procedure is paid”.
  • Number of citations of a patent document in other, later patent documents—the assumption: “if multiple patent documents refer to a particular document, it indicates that this document describes (and perhaps at least partially solves) a significant problem.
Using these two criteria, the most influential patent documents for mycelium-based technology were listed in Table 5.
The generalized MBCs production protocol can be compiled from research articles, patent documents, or open source manuals (e.g., [142]). Such a general protocol includes:
(1)
The chosen mycelium specie is pre-grown in a Petri dish with a growth medium solidified with agar.
(2)
The substrate for the culture of mycelium is homogenized (the substrate is a mix of selected biopolymers with defined granulation and proportion). The substrate is also sterilized to kill or deactivate all microorganisms in it.
(3)
The pre-grown mycelium and sterile water are added to the substrate. Additional nutrients can also be added. The inoculated substrate is packed in a sterile mould (a bag or a container).
(4)
The mycelium grows trough the substrate in a controlled micro-climate (temperature, air humidity, without light). The mycelium composite can be created initially in the mould to its internal reinforcement, and then outside the mould to solidify its surface.
(5)
The mycelium composite is sterilized to end the growth process and then dried to the target moisture content.
(6)
A pressing, machining, coating or other required product post-processing is applied.
The review of patent documents shows that biofoam composites and layered structures with mycelium-based composites can be used in building structures as structural materials (e.g., the core of sandwich panels and gap fillers), interior finishing materials (e.g., wall panels) and floors), as well as materials for portable home furnishings (furniture and other portable items) and packaging materials. They can have an insulating function due to their low heat conductivity or a sound-absorbing function. Biocomposites can therefore be an alternative to synthetic foams found in automotive bumpers, doors, roofs, engine cavities, boot linings, dashboards, and seats because the mycelium-based material has the same or better ability to absorb impacts, insulate, dampen sound and provide lightweight construction in the car from typical synthetic foams. The material also showed good fire resistance. Applications in the construction industry are mainly limited to fire-proof thermal and acoustic insulators. So far, the use of this innovative biocomposite in the construction industry has been limited only to a small scale and to exhibition installations.
Considering all the ecological advantages of mycelial and bio-substrate composites, the question arises, why such materials are not used very widely. Potential reasons for this may be problems with low mechanical properties, high water absorption, lack of Life Cycle Assessment information for this material, and lack of standard production methods and standardized methods for testing material properties.

4. Mycelium-Based Material in Elements of Interior Design—Case Study

Even though the mycelium-based composites is currently studied mostly for purposes in which visual or aesthetical aspects are insignificant, like packaging, experiments performed by the authors suggest that it can be successfully used for creating interior design elements. Mycelium-based materials embrace a new aesthetics characterized by imperfections and irregularities through natural and spontaneous growth, thus achieving a unique structure, as in wood. The physical and geometric properties of objects evolve and change slightly over time. These properties make it an unusual and challenging material. Different textures that characterize the material samples depend on how the substrate has been formed before the growth; the material’s surface has visible natural fibres and dominating natural mycelium colouring: off-whites with yellow or brownish irregularities in more mature areas. The user perceives these characteristics as organic, warm, and natural, which influences the typology of products that could be created.
The first shapes obtained from mycelium-based material by Agata Bonenberg were simple panels that allowed the growth and maturation of the material to be observed (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Then spherical objects were created to study the emergence of different textures: smooth (Figure 8), rough (Figure 9). The object shown in Figure 10 combines both; it has a smooth well-fragmented substrate at the bottom, and an uneven, rough part at the top. This opens interesting possibilities for future projects.
Experimentation with textures and shapes of forms has led to preliminary product development and production. The designs of a table light fixture, a table bowl, and a coffee table have been executed. In each of these projects, mycelium-based elements had to be combined with other materials. The author has chosen natural components such as timber to match the design’s pro-ecological spirit and give overall natural “touch”. The small table lamp is a good example of this approach: a mycelium-grown, cylindrical lampshade has been fixed on a simple cubical timber base (Figure 11 and Figure 12).
Similarly, a container bowl was created, where an upper part of the object was fixed to the rough-timber torus-shaped base (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Again, the look of the object is “organic”. At the same time, the heavier wooden base gives the bowl its functional stability.
Another artifact created is a coffee table where a mycelium-based tabletop has been grown on a metal frame, ensuring its structural stability (Figure 14). The tabletop is thick but light, with well-consolidated smooth surfaces from the top and sides, but an uneven and rough texture can be perceived from the bottom. In addition, there is a clear contrast between the thin steel legs of the table and the thick-bodied top. Finally, the triangular shape gives the object expressive, characteristic looks.
The challenge of unconventional materials is the technique of fastening elements [143,144]. The new material requires a new approach in this field, which will be a further direction of our activities.

5. Conclusions

Regarding the current excessive dependence of the construction and production industry on hydrocarbon-containing materials occurring within Earth’s crust; taking into account the abundance of waste and industrial by-products, it is necessary to make greater use of the advantages of biomaterials with a low carbon footprint [145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152]. The following conclusions can be drawn from the reviewed content presented:
  • MBCs (mycelium-based composites) offer favourable production price, ecological value, and high artistic value. Their weaknesses are insufficient design properties and not fully known reliability (quality during use), therefore both scientific research and engineering creativity, which is manifested by patents documents, are heading in this direction.
  • A review of the scientific literature shows that the material parameters of MBCs can be adjusted to the needs: by selecting the type of substrate and fungus species, by controlling the growth conditions, the method of inactivation of the mycelium after growth, and the drying method. In this way, it is possible to meet certain requirements, e.g., increase the structural load-bearing capacity to an acceptable level and reduce the affinity with water, and additionally improve the acoustic and thermal insulation. However, the problem is the almost infinite number of combinations: properties of the input biomaterials, characteristics of the mushroom species, and parameters during growth and subsequent processing of the MBC.
  • The review of patent documents shows that two current technological challenges are related to the creation of MBCs with the properties required by the final product. Especially, looking for an effective method of increasing strength, for example by increasing the density, the search for a method of obtaining a more homogeneous internal structure.
  • The described own technological experiments, consisting of the production of various everyday objects, indicate that some disadvantages of MBCs can be considered advantages. Such an unexpected advantage is the interesting and unrepeatable surface texture resulting from the natural unevenness of the internal structure of MBCs, which can be controlled to some extent.
The presented results of the analysis of a wide variety of literature and own technological experiments suggest that the share of mycelium-based composites in industrial production and construction will increase, despite certain limitations of this innovative class of materials in terms of manufacturing difficulties, insufficient strength, unknown durability and reliability, and challenges in fastening technology. These problems will be gradually solved or at least significantly minimized. This is supported by the fundamental advantages of these types of bio-composites, i.e., the ability to produce from by-products or waste, low energy requirements for production, biodegradability and artistic values.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B; methodology, M.S.; software, M.S.; validation, M.S.; formal analysis, B.D. and G.C.; investigation, A.B.; resources, A.B. and M.S.; data curation, B.D. and G.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S. and A.B.; writing—review and editing, M.S.; visualization, A.B.; supervision, M.S.; project administration, A.B.; funding acquisition, A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by Poznan University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture (SDBAD 2021 “Shaping architecture and interiors in the context of contemporary cultural and social transformations–Kształtowanie architektury i wnętrz w kontekście współczesnych przeobrażeń kulturowo-społecznych” ERP 0113/SBAD/2131).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ekblad, A.; Wallander, H.; Godbold, D.L.; Cruz, C.; Johnson, D.; Baldrian, P.; Björk, R.; Epron, D.; Kieliszewska-Rokicka, B.; Kjøller, R. The Production and Turnover of Extramatrical Mycelium of Ectomycorrhizal Fungi in Forest Soils: Role in Carbon Cycling. Plant Soil 2013, 366, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Webster, J.; Weber, R. Introduction to Fungi, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2007; ISBN 978-0-511-27783-2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kavanagh, K. (Ed.) Fungi: Biology and Applications, 3rd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-119-37416-9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Elsacker, E. Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Fabrication and Properties of Mycelium-Based Materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ţura, D.; Wasser, S.P.; Zmitrovich, I.V. Wood-Inhabiting Fungi: Applied Aspects. In Fungi: Applications and Management Strategies; Deshmukh, S.K., Misra, J.K., Tewari, J.P., Papp, T., Eds.; Progress in Mycological Research; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 245–292. ISBN 978-1-4987-2492-0. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rothschild, L.J.; Maurer, C.; Paulino Lima, I.G.; Senesky, D.; Wipat, A.; Head, J., III. Myco-Architecture off Planet: Growing Surface Structures at Destination. NIAC 2018 Phase I Final Report; NASA Ames Research Center: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2019; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  7. Heisel, F.; Lee, J.; Schlesier, K.; Rippmann, M.; Saeidi, N.; Javadian, A.; Nugroho, A.R.; Mele, T.V.; Block, P.; Hebel, D.E. Design, Cultivation and Application of Load-Bearing Mycelium Components: The MycoTree at the 2017 Seoul Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism. IJSED 2017, 6, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ratti, C. A Living Architecture for the Digital Era. Diségno 2019, 4, 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  9. Joachim, M.; Aiolova, M. Design with Life; ACTAR Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-948765-20-6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Goidea, A.; Floudas, D.; Andréen, D. Pulp Faction: 3d Printed Material Assemblies through Microbial Biotransformation. In Fabricate 2020: Making Resilient Architecture; Burry, J., Sabin, J., Sheil, B., Skavara, M., Eds.; Fabricate; UCL Press: London, UK, 2020; pp. 42–49. ISBN 978-1-78735-811-9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dias, J. Hyper Articulated Myco-Morphs. Available online: https://www.biobabes.co.uk/mycomorphs (accessed on 27 December 2021).
  12. Meyer, V.; Schmidt, B.; Pohl, C.; Cerimi, K.; Schubert, B.; Weber, B.; Neubauer, P.; Junne, S.; Zakeri, Z.; Rapp, R.; et al. Mind the Fungi; Meyer, V., Rapp, R., Eds.; Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2020; ISBN 978-3-7983-3169-3. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sheldrake, M. Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures, 5th ed.; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-525-51032-1. [Google Scholar]
  14. Holt, G.A.; Mcintyre, G.; Flagg, D.; Bayer, E.; Wanjura, J.D.; Pelletier, M.G. Fungal Mycelium and Cotton Plant Materials in the Manufacture of Biodegradable Molded Packaging Material: Evaluation Study of Select Blends of Cotton Byproducts. J. Biobased Mat. Bioenergy 2012, 6, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pelletier, M.G.; Holt, G.A.; Wanjura, J.D.; Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. An Evaluation Study of Mycelium Based Acoustic Absorbers Grown on Agricultural By-Product Substrates. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 51, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arifin, Y.H.; Yusuf, Y. Mycelium Fibers as New Resource for Environmental Sustainability. Procedia Eng. 2013, 53, 504–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Travaglini, S.; Noble, J.; Ross, P.G.; Dharan, C.K.H. Mycology Matrix Composites. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites—Twenty-Eighth Technical Conference, State College, PA, USA, 9–11 September 2013; Bakis, C., Ed.; DEStech Publications, Inc.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2013; Volume 1, pp. 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  18. Velasco, P.M.; Ortiz, M.P.M.; Giro, M.A.M.; Castelló, M.C.J.; Velasco, L.M. Development of Better Insulation Bricks by Adding Mushroom Compost Wastes. Energy Build. 2014, 80, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Travaglini, S.; Dharan, C.K.H.; Ross, P.G. Mycology Matrix Sandwich Composites Flexural Characterization. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites 2014—Twenty-Ninth Technical Conference on Composite Materials, La Jolla, CA, USA, 8–10 September 2014; DEStech Publications, Inc.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 1941–1955. [Google Scholar]
  20. He, J.; Cheng, C.M.; Su, D.G.; Zhong, M.F. Study on the Mechanical Properties of the Latex-Mycelium Composite. AMM 2014, 507, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lelivelt, R.; Lindner, G.; Teuffel, P.; Lamers, H. The Production Process and Compressive Strength of Mycelium-Based Materials. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bio-based Building Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 22–25 June 2015; Eindhoven University of Technology: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Travaglini, S.; Dharan, C.K.H.; Ross, P.G. Thermal Properties of Mycology Materials. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites—Thirtieth Technical Conference, East Lansing, MI, USA, 28–30 September 2015; Xiao, X., Loos, A.C., Liu, D., Eds.; DEStech Publications: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 1453–1460. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Bucinell, R. A New Approach to Manufacturing Biocomposite Sandwich Structures: Mycelium-Based Cores. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 11th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 27 June–1 July 2016; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2016; Volume 1, p. V001T02A025. [Google Scholar]
  24. López Nava, J.A.; Méndez González, J.; Ruelas Chacón, X.; Nájera Luna, J.A. Assessment of Edible Fungi and Films Bio-Based Material Simulating Expanded Polystyrene. Mater. Manuf. Processes 2016, 31, 1085–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mayoral González, E.; González Diez, I. Bacterial Induced Cementation Processes and Mycelium Panel Growth from Agricultural Waste. KEM 2016, 663, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ziegler, A.R.; Bajwa, S.; Holt, G.; Mcintyre, G.; Bajwa, D.S. Evaluation of Physico-Mechanical Properties of Mycelium Reinforced Green Biocomposites Made from Cellulosic Fibers. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2016, 32, 931–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Travaglini, S.; Dharan, C.K.H.; Ross, P.G. Manufacturing of Mycology Composites. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites Thirty-First Technical Conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA, 19–21 September 2016; Davidson, B.D., Czabaj, M.W., Eds.; American Society for Composites (ASC): Dayton, OH, USA, 2016; Volume 4, pp. 2670–2680. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haneef, M.; Ceseracciu, L.; Canale, C.; Bayer, I.S.; Heredia-Guerrero, J.A.; Athanassiou, A. Advanced Materials From Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Properties. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pelletier, M.G.; Holt, G.A.; Wanjura, J.D.; Lara, A.J.; Tapia-Carillo, A.; McIntyre, G.; Bayer, E. An Evaluation Study of Pressure-Compressed Acoustic Absorbers Grown on Agricultural by-Products. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 95, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Travaglini, S.; Dharan, C.K.H.; Ross, P.G. Biomimetic Mycology Biocomposites. In Proceedings of the 32nd Technical Conference of the American Society for Composites 2017, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 23–25 October 2017; Yu, W., Pipes, R.B., Goodsell, J., Eds.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 409–419. [Google Scholar]
  31. Attias, N.; Danai, O.; Tarazi, E.; Grobman, Y. Developing Novel Applications of Mycelium Based Bio-Composite Materials for Architecture and Design. In Books of Abstracts of the Final COST Action FP1303 International Scientific Conference, Proceedings of Building with Bio-Based Materials: Best Practice and Performance Specification, Zagreb, Croatia, 6–7 September 2017; University of Zagreb Croatia: Zagreb, Croatia, 2017; pp. 76–78. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bajwa, D.S.; Holt, G.A.; Bajwa, S.G.; Duke, S.E.; McIntyre, G. Enhancement of Termite (Reticulitermes Flavipes L.) Resistance in Mycelium Reinforced Biofiber-Composites. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 107, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moser, F.J.; Wormit, A.; Reimer, J.J.; Jacobs, G.; Trautz, M.; Hillringhaus, F.; Usadel, B.; Löwer, M.; Beger, A.-L. Fungal Mycelium as a Building Material. In Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposia, IASS 2017, Beijing, China, 10–14 September 2017; International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS): Hamburg, Germany, 2017; Volume 2017, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Bucinell, R.; Tudryn, G. Manufacturing of Biocomposite Sandwich Structures Using Mycelium-Bound Cores and Preforms. J. Manuf. Processes 2017, 28, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Campbell, S.; Correa, D.; Wood, D.; Menges, A. Modular Mycelia. Scaling Fungal Growth for Architectural Assembly. In Proceedings of the Computational Fabrication—eCAADe RIS 2017, Cardiff, UK, 27–28 April 2017; Spaeth, B.A., Jabi, W., Eds.; Cardiff University, Welsh School of Architecture: Cardiff, UK, 2017; pp. 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  36. Islam, M.R.; Tudryn, G.; Bucinell, R.; Schadler, L.; Picu, R.C. Morphology and Mechanics of Fungal Mycelium. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Yang, Z.; Zhang, F.; Still, B.; White, M.; Amstislavski, P. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Fungal Mycelium-Based Biofoam. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Travaglini, S.; Dharan, C.K.H. Advanced Manufacturing of Mycological Bio-Based Composites. In Proceedings of the 33rd Technical Conference of the American Society for Composites 2018; DEStech Publications Inc.: Seattle, WA, USA, 2018; Volume 5, pp. 3387–3399. [Google Scholar]
  39. Läkk, H.; Krijgsheld, P.; Montalti, M.; Wösten, H. Fungal Based Biocomposite for Habitat Structures on the Moon and Mars. In Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2018), Bremen, Germany, 1–5 October 2018; International Astronautical Federation: Paris, France, 2018; Volume 22, pp. 16102–16112. [Google Scholar]
  40. Xing, Y.; Brewer, M.; El-Gharabawy, H.; Griffith, G.; Jones, P. Growing and Testing Mycelium Bricks as Building Insulation Materials. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 121, 022032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Appels, F.V.W.; Dijksterhuis, J.; Lukasiewicz, C.E.; Jansen, K.M.B.; Wösten, H.A.B.; Krijgsheld, P. Hydrophobin Gene Deletion and Environmental Growth Conditions Impact Mechanical Properties of Mycelium by Affecting the Density of the Material. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jones, M.; Huynh, T.; John, S. Inherent Species Characteristic Influence and Growth Performance Assessment for Mycelium Composite Applications. Adv. Mater. Lett. 2018, 9, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Islam, M.R.; Tudryn, G.; Bucinell, R.; Schadler, L.; Picu, R.C. Mechanical Behavior of Mycelium-Based Particulate Composites. J. Mater. Sci. 2018, 53, 16371–16382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tudryn, G.J.; Smith, L.C.; Freitag, J.; Bucinell, R.; Schadler, L.S. Processing and Morphology Impacts on Mechanical Properties of Fungal Based Biopolymer Composites. J. Polym. Environ. 2018, 26, 1473–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jones, M.; Bhat, T.; Kandare, E.; Thomas, A.; Joseph, P.; Dekiwadia, C.; Yuen, R.; John, S.; Ma, J.; Wang, C.-H. Thermal Degradation and Fire Properties of Fungal Mycelium and Mycelium—Biomass Composite Materials. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jones, M.; Bhat, T.; Huynh, T.; Kandare, E.; Yuen, R.; Wang, C.H.; John, S. Waste-Derived Low-Cost Mycelium Composite Construction Materials with Improved Fire Safety. Fire Mater. 2018, 42, 816–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karana, E.; Blauwhoff, D.; Hultink, E.J.; Camere, S. When the Material Grows: A Case Study on Designing (with) Mycelium-Based Materials. Int. J. Des. 2018, 12, 119–136. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pelletier, M.G.; Holt, G.A.; Wanjura, J.D.; Greetham, L.; McIntyre, G.; Bayer, E.; Kaplan-Bie, J. Acoustic Evaluation of Mycological Biopolymer, an All-Natural Closed Cell Foam Alternative. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jones, M.P.; Lawrie, A.C.; Huynh, T.T.; Morrison, P.D.; Mautner, A.; Bismarck, A.; John, S. Agricultural By-Product Suitability for the Production of Chitinous Composites and Nanofibers Utilising Trametes Versicolor and Polyporus Brumalis Mycelial Growth. Process Biochem. 2019, 80, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Bucinell, R.; Li, B. Bioresin Infused Then Cured Mycelium-Based Sandwich-Structure Biocomposites: Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) Process, Flexural Properties, and Simulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vidholdová, Z.; Kormúthová, D.; Ždinský, J.I.; Lagaňa, R. Compressive Resistance of the Mycelium Composite. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci.-SGGW 2019, 107, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Appels, F.V.W.; Camere, S.; Montalti, M.; Karana, E.; Jansen, K.M.B.; Dijksterhuis, J.; Krijgsheld, P.; Wösten, H.A.B. Fabrication Factors Influencing Mechanical, Moisture- and Water-Related Properties of Mycelium-Based Composites. Mater. Des. 2019, 161, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sun, W.; Tajvidi, M.; Hunt, C.G.; McIntyre, G.; Gardner, D.J. Fully Bio-Based Hybrid Composites Made of Wood, Fungal Mycelium and Cellulose Nanofibrils. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wimmers, G.; Klick, J.; Tackaberry, L.; Zwiesigk, C.; Egger, K.; Massicotte, H. Fundamental Studies for Designing Insulation Panels from Wood Shavings and Filamentous Fungi. BioResources 2019, 14, 5506–5520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bruscato, C.; Malvessi, E.; Brandalise, R.N.; Camassola, M. High Performance of Macrofungi in the Production of Mycelium-Based Biofoams Using Sawdust—Sustainable Technology for Waste Reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Attias, N.; Danai, O.; Tarazi, E.; Pereman, I.; Grobman, Y.J. Implementing Bio-Design Tools to Develop Mycelium-Based Products. Des. J. 2019, 22, 1647–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Elsacker, E.; Vandelook, S.; Brancart, J.; Peeters, E.; De Laet, L. Mechanical, Physical and Chemical Characterisation of Mycelium-Based Composites with Different Types of Lignocellulosic Substrates. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Matos, M.P.; Teixeira, J.L.; Nascimento, B.L.; Griza, S.; Holanda, F.S.R.; Marino, R.H. Production of Biocomposites from the Reuse of Coconut Powder Colonized by Shiitake Mushroom. Ciênc. Agrotec. 2019, 43, e003819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, X.; Han, C.; Wnek, G.; Yu, X. (Bill) Thermal Stability Improvement of Fungal Mycelium. In Proceedings of the Materials Science & Technology (MS&T) 2019, Portland, OR, USA, 29 September–3 October 2019; Association for Iron & Steel Technology (AIST): Warrendale, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 1367–1375. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bhardwaj, A.; Vasselli, J.; Lucht, M.; Pei, Z.; Shaw, B.; Grasley, Z.; Wei, X.; Zou, N. 3D Printing of Biomass-Fungi Composite Material: A Preliminary Study. Manuf. Lett. 2020, 24, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tacer-Caba, Z.; Varis, J.J.; Lankinen, P.; Mikkonen, K.S. Comparison of Novel Fungal Mycelia Strains and Sustainable Growth Substrates to Produce Humidity-Resistant Biocomposites. Mater. Des. 2020, 192, 108728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Soh, E.; Chew, Z.Y.; Saeidi, N.; Javadian, A.; Hebel, D.; Le Ferrand, H. Development of an Extrudable Paste to Build Mycelium-Bound Composites. Mater. Des. 2020, 195, 109058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Silverman, J.; Cao, H.; Cobb, K. Development of Mushroom Mycelium Composites for Footwear Products. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2020, 38, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Antinori, M.E.; Ceseracciu, L.; Mancini, G.; Heredia-Guerrero, J.A.; Athanassiou, A. Fine-Tuning of Physicochemical Properties and Growth Dynamics of Mycelium-Based Materials. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2020, 3, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zimele, Z.; Irbe, I.; Grinins, J.; Bikovens, O.; Verovkins, A.; Bajare, D. Novel Mycelium-Based Biocomposites (MBB) as Building Materials. J. Renew. Mater. 2020, 8, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ridzqo, I.F.; Susanto, D.; Panjaitan, T.H.; Putra, N. Sustainable Material: Development Experiment of Bamboo Composite Through Biologically Binding Mechanism. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 713, 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alves, R.M.E.; Alves, M.L.; Campos, M.J. Morphology and Thermal Behaviour of New Mycelium-Based Composites with Different Types of Substrates. In Progress in Digital and Physical Manufacturing; Almeida, H.A., Vasco, J.C., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 189–197. ISBN 978-3-030-29040-5. [Google Scholar]
  68. Bhardwaj, A.; Rahman, A.M.; Wei, X.; Pei, Z.; Truong, D.; Lucht, M.; Zou, N. 3D Printing of Biomass–Fungi Composite Material: Effects of Mixture Composition on Print Quality. JMMP 2021, 5, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Saez, D.; Grizmann, D.; Trautz, M.; Werner, A. Analyzing a Fungal Mycelium and Chipped Wood Composite for Use in Construction. In Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2020/21 and the 7th International Conference on Spatial Structures Inspiring the Next Generation, Guilford, UK, 23–27 August 2021; Behnejad, S.A., Parke, G.A.R., Samavati, O.A., Eds.; IASS: Madrid, Spain, 2021; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  70. Müller, C.; Klemm, S.; Fleck, C. Bracket Fungi, Natural Lightweight Construction Materials: Hierarchical Microstructure and Compressive Behavior of Fomes Fomentarius Fruit Bodies. Appl. Phys. A 2021, 127, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Irbe, I.; Filipova, I.; Skute, M.; Zajakina, A.; Spunde, K.; Juhna, T. Characterization of Novel Biopolymer Blend Mycocel from Plant Cellulose and Fungal Fibers. Polymers 2021, 13, 1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sivaprasad, S.; Byju, S.K.; Prajith, C.; Shaju, J.; Rejeesh, C.R. Development of a Novel Mycelium Bio-Composite Material to Substitute for Polystyrene in Packaging Applications. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 5038–5044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jauk, J.; Vašatko, H.; Gosch, L.; Christian, I.; Klaus, A.; Stavric, M. Digital Fabrication of Growth-Combining Digital Manufacturing of Clay with Natural Growth of Mycelium. In Proceedings of the 26th CAADRIA Conference, Hong Kong, China, 29 March–1 April 2021; Association for Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA): Hong Kong, China, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 753–762. [Google Scholar]
  74. Nashiruddin, N.I.; Chua, K.S.; Mansor, A.F.; Rahman, R.A.; Lai, J.C.; Wan Azelee, N.I.; El Enshasy, H. Effect of Growth Factors on the Production of Mycelium-Based Biofoam. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Răut, I.; Călin, M.; Vuluga, Z.; Oancea, F.; Paceagiu, J.; Radu, N.; Doni, M.; Alexandrescu, E.; Purcar, V.; Gurban, A.-M.; et al. Fungal Based Biopolymer Composites for Construction Materials. Materials 2021, 14, 2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Elsacker, E.; Søndergaard, A.; Van Wylick, A.; Peeters, E.; De Laet, L. Growing Living and Multifunctional Mycelium Composites for Large-Scale Formwork Applications Using Robotic Abrasive Wire-Cutting. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 283, 122732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Santos, I.S.; Nascimento, B.L.; Marino, R.H.; Sussuchi, E.M.; Matos, M.P.; Griza, S. Influence of Drying Heat Treatments on the Mechanical Behavior and Physico-Chemical Properties of Mycelial Biocomposite. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 217, 108870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jose, J.; Uvais, K.N.; Sreenadh, T.S.; Deepak, A.V.; Rejeesh, C.R. Investigations into the Development of a Mycelium Biocomposite to Substitute Polystyrene in Packaging Applications. Arab J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 2975–2984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Stelzer, L.; Hoberg, F.; Bach, V.; Schmidt, B.; Pfeiffer, S.; Meyer, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Fungal-Based Composite Bricks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Adamatzky, A.; Gandia, A. Living Mycelium Composites Discern Weights via Patterns of Electrical Activity. J. Biores. Bioprod. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chan, X.Y.; Saeidi, N.; Javadian, A.; Hebel, D.E.; Gupta, M. Mechanical Properties of Dense Mycelium-Bound Composites under Accelerated Tropical Weathering Conditions. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gou, L.; Li, S.; Yin, J.; Li, T.; Liu, X. Morphological and Physico-Mechanical Properties of Mycelium Biocomposites with Natural Reinforcement Particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 304, 124656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lee, T.; Choi, J. Mycelium-Composite Panels for Atmospheric Particulate Matter Adsorption. Results Mater. 2021, 11, 100208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhang, X.; Fan, X.; Han, C.; Li, Y.; Price, E.; Wnek, G.; Liao, Y.-T.T.; Yu, X. (Bill) Novel Strategies to Grow Natural Fibers with Improved Thermal Stability and Fire Resistance. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kuribayashi, T.; Lankinen, P.; Hietala, S.; Mikkonen, K.S. Dense and Continuous Networks of Aerial Hyphae Improve Flexibility and Shape Retention of Mycelium Composite in the Wet State. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2022, 152, 106688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Attias, N.; Danai, O.; Abitbol, T.; Tarazi, E.; Ezov, N.; Pereman, I.; Grobman, Y.J. Mycelium Bio-Composites in Industrial Design and Architecture: Comparative Review and Experimental Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 119037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; Mooney, L.; Putney, S. Manufacturing of Mycelium-Based Biocomposites. In Proceedings of the International SAMPE Technical Conference, Covina, CA, USA, 6–9 May 2013; Beckwith, S.W., Ed.; Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering: Long Beach, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 1944–1955. [Google Scholar]
  88. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Chan, W.K. Cost Modeling and Optimization of a Manufacturing System for Mycelium-Based Biocomposite Parts. J. Manuf. Syst. 2016, 41, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Da Conceição Van Nieuwenhuizen, J.B.; Blauwhoff, D.R.L.M.; De Werdt, M.F.C.; Van Der Zanden, W.G.N.; Van Rhee, D.J.J.L.; Bottger, W.O.J. The Compressive Strength of Mycelium Derived from a Mushroom Production Process. Acad. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jones, M.; Huynh, T.; Dekiwadia, C.; Daver, F.; John, S. Mycelium Composites: A Review of Engineering Characteristics and Growth Kinetics. J. Bionanosci. 2017, 11, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Abhijith, R.; Ashok, A.; Rejeesh, C.R. Sustainable Packaging Applications from Mycelium to Substitute Polystyrene: A Review. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 2139–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Girometta, C.; Picco, A.M.; Baiguera, R.M.; Dondi, D.; Babbini, S.; Cartabia, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Savino, E. Physico-Mechanical and Thermodynamic Properties of Mycelium-Based Biocomposites: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Travaglini, S.; Parlevliet, P.P.; Dharan, C.K.H. Bio-Based Mycelium Materials for Aerospace Applications. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites—4th Technical Conference, ASC 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, 23–25 September 2019; DEStech Publications, Inc.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  94. Cerimi, K.; Akkaya, K.C.; Pohl, C.; Schmidt, B.; Neubauer, P. Fungi as Source for New Bio-Based Materials: A Patent Review. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2019, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Robertson, O.; Høgdal, F.; Mckay, L.; Lenau, T. Fungal Future: A Review of Mycelium Biocomposites as an Ecological Alternative Insulation Material. In Proceedings of the Balancing Innovation and operation, Lyngby, Denmark, 12–14 August 2020; Design Society: Glasgow, UK, 2020; Volume 101, pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  96. Jones, M.; Mautner, A.; Luenco, S.; Bismarck, A.; John, S. Engineered Mycelium Composite Construction Materials from Fungal Biorefineries: A Critical Review. Mater. Des. 2020, 187, 108397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Elsacker, E.; Vandelook, S.; Van Wylick, A.; Ruytinx, J.; De Laet, L.; Peeters, E. A Comprehensive Framework for the Production of Mycelium-Based Lignocellulosic Composites. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Manan, S.; Ullah, M.W.; Ul-Islam, M.; Atta, O.M.; Yang, G. Synthesis and Applications of Fungal Mycelium-Based Advanced Functional Materials. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2021, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Feijóo-Vivas, K.; Bermúdez-Puga, S.A.; Rebolledo, H.; Figueroa, J.M.; Zamora, P.; Naranjo-Briceño, L. Bioproductos Desarrollados a Partir de Micelio de Hongos: Una Nueva Cultura Material y Su Impacto En La Transición Hacia Una Economía Sostenible. RB 2021, 6, 1637–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ghazvinian, A. A Sustainable Alternative to Architectural Materials: Mycelium-Based Bio-Composites. In Proceedings of the Divergence in Architectural Research, Atlanta, GA, USA, 15 February 2021; Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, GA, USA; pp. 159–167. [Google Scholar]
  101. Rafiee, K.; Kaur, G.; Brar, S.K. Fungal Biocomposites: How Process Engineering Affects Composition and Properties? Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 14, 100692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, L.; Park, D.; Qin, Z. Material Function of Mycelium-Based Bio-Composite: A Review. Front. Mater. 2021, 8, 737377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Angelova, G.V.; Brazkova, M.S.; Krastanov, A.I. Renewable Mycelium Based Composite–Sustainable Approach for Lignocellulose Waste Recovery and Alternative to Synthetic Materials—A Review. Z. Nat. C 2021, 76, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Gandia, A.; van den Brandhof, J.G.; Appels, F.V.W.; Jones, M.P. Flexible Fungal Materials: Shaping the Future. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 1321–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Javadian, A.; Ferrand, H.L.; Hebel, D.E.; Saeidi, N. Application of Mycelium-Bound Composite Materials in Construction Industry: A Short Review. SOJ Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  106. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G.; Swersey, B.L. Method for Producing Grown Materials and Products Made Thereby. Patent Application US 2008/0145577, 30 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
  107. Smith, M.J.; Goldman, J.; Boulet-Audet, M.; Tom, S.J.; Li, H.; Hurlburt, T.J. Composite Material, and Methods for Production Thereof. U.S. Patent 11015059 B2, 25 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. Method for Producing Grown Materials and Products Made Thereby. U.S. Patent 9485917 B2, 8 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  109. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. Method for Producing Rapidly Renewable Chitinous Material Using Fungal Fruiting Bodies and Product Made Thereby. U.S. Patent 8001719 B2, 23 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
  110. Kalisz, R.E.; Rocco, C.A.; Tengler, E.C.J.; Petrella-Lovasik, R.L. Injection Molded Mycelium and Method. U.S. Patent 8313939 B2, 20 November 2012. [Google Scholar]
  111. Rocco, C.A.; Kalisz, R.E. Mycelium Structure with Self-Attaching Coverstock and Method. U.S. Patent 8298810 B2, 30 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  112. Kalisz, R.E.; Rocco, C.A. Method of Making Foamed Mycelium Structure. U.S. Patent 8227233 B2, 24 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  113. Kalisz, R.E.; Rocco, C.A. Method of Making Molded Part Comprising Mycelium Coupled to Mechanical Device. U.S. Patent 8227224 B2, 24 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  114. Rocco, C.A.; Kalisz, R.E. Plasticized Mycelium Composite and Method. U.S. Patent 8227225 B2, 24 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
  115. Rocco, C.A.; Kalisz, R.E. Mycelium Structures Containing Nanocomposite Materials and Method. U.S. Patent 8283153 B2, 9 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  116. Kalisz, R.E.; Rocco, C.A. Method of Making a Hardened Elongate Structure from Mycelium. U.S. Patent 8298809 B2, 30 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kalisz, R.E.; Rocco, C.A. The Sheet Stock Mycelium of Cutting and Method. Patent CN 102329512 B, 1 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ross, P. Method for Producing Fungus Structures. U.S. Patent 9410116 B2, 9 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  119. McIntyre, G.; Bayer, E.; Flagg, D. Method of Producing A Chitinous Polymer Derived from Fungal Mycelium. U.S. Patent 9879219 B2, 30 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
  120. Bayer, E.; Mcintyre, G. Method for Making Dehydrated Mycelium Elements and Product Made Thereby. Patent CA 2834095 C, 11 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  121. McIntyre, G.; Bayer, E.; Palazzolo, A. Method of Growing Mycological Biomaterials. U.S. Patent 10154627 B2, 18 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  122. Laboutiere, L.; Lemiere, E.; Mechineau, A. Process for Manufacturing a Composite Material Based On Natural Fibres Seeded with Mycelium and Part Obtained with Such a Process. Patent FR 3006693 B1, 1 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  123. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. Method of Growing Electrically Conductive Tissue. U.S. Patent 9253889 B2, 2 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
  124. Winiski, J.M.; Hook, S.S.V. Tissue Morphology Produced with the Fungus Pycnoporus Cinnabarinus. U.S. Patent 9085763 B2, 21 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
  125. Bayer, E.; Mcintyre, G.; Swersey, B. Self Supporting Composite Material. Patent AU 2013/251269 B2, 1 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  126. McIntyre, G.R.; Tudryn, G.; Betts, J.; Winiski, J. Stiff Mycelium Bound Part and Method of Producing Stiff Mycelium Bound Parts. U.S. Patent 10144149 B2, 4 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  127. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G.R. Method for Growing Mycological Materials. U.S. Patent 9394512 B2, 19 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  128. Schaak, D.D.; Lucht, M.J. Biofilm Treatment of Composite Materials Containing Mycelium. U.S. Patent 9469838 B2, 18 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  129. Chen, Q.; Peng, Z.; Chen, Q.; Liu, H.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y. Production Method for Biomass Packing Material. Patent CN 105292758 B, 8 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  130. Betts, J.D.; Mcintyre, G.R.; Mooney, L.; Tudryn, G.J. Method of Manufacturing a Stiff Engineered Composite. AU 2015/271912 B2, 20 February 2020. [Google Scholar]
  131. Winiski, J.; Hook, S.V.; Lucht, M.; McIntyre, G. Process for Solid-State Cultivation of Mycelium on a Lignocellulose Substrate. U.S. Patent 9914906 B2, 13 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  132. Deng, Y.; Xu, Y.; Gao, C.; Yu, S.; Dong, W. Method for Preparing Degradable Buffer Material by Using Macro Fungi Mycelia. Patent CN 106148199 B, 18 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
  133. Chen, Q.; Peng, Z.; Chen, Q.; Liu, H.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y. Using Bagasse as Fungi Based Biomass Packaging Material of Major Ingredient and Preparation Method Thereof. Patent CN 106633989 B, 24 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  134. Amstislavski, P.; Yang, Z.; White, M.D. Thermal Insulation Material from Mycelium and Forestry Byproducts. U.S. Patent 10604734 B2, 31 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
  135. Lee, B.G. An Eco-Friendly Packing Materials Comprising Mushroom Mycelium and the Process for the Preparation Thereof. Patent KR 102256335 B1, 26 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  136. Sydor, M. Geometry of Wood Screws: A Patent Review. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2019, 77, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G. Method for Making Dehydrated Mycelium Elements and Product Made Thereby. Patent Application US 20120270302, 25 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  138. Kaplan-Bie, J.H.; Bonesteel, I.T.; Greetham, L.; McIntyre, G.R. Increased Homogeneity of Mycological Biopolymer Grown into Void Space. Patent Application WO 2019/099474 A1, 23 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  139. Ross, P. Method for Producing Fungus Structures. Patent Application US 2012/0135504 A1, 9 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  140. Kaplan-Bie, J.H. Solution Based Post-Processing Methods for Mycological Biopolymer Material and Mycological Product Made Thereby. Patent Application US 2018/0282529 A1, 4 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  141. Carlton, A.; Bayer, E.; McIntyre, G.; Kaplan-Bie, J. Method of Producing a Mycological Product and Product Made Thereby. Patent Application US 2020/0024577 A1, 23 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  142. Elsacker, E.; Peters, K.; Poncelet, W. Hard Mycelium Materials Manual; Manuals & guides; BioFabForum: Sint-Denijs-Westrem, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  143. Branowski, B.; Zabłocki, M.; Sydor, M. Experimental Analysis of New Furniture Joints. Bioresources 2018, 13, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Branowski, B.; Starczewski, K.; Zabłocki, M.; Sydor, M. Design Issues of Innovative Furniture Fasteners for Wood-Based Boards. Bioresources 2020, 15, 8472–8495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sydor, M.; Wieloch, G. Construction Properties of Wood Taken into Consideration in Engineering Practice. Drewno 2009, 52, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  146. Antov, P.; Savov, V. Possibilities for Manufacturing Eco-Friendly Medium Density Fibreboards from Recycled Fibres—A Review. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Wood Science and Technology, ICWST 2019 and 70th Anniversary of Drvna industrija Journal: Implementation of Wood Science in Woodworking Sector, Zagreb, Croatia, 12–13 December 2019; Lucic, R.B., Zivkovic, V., Barcic, A.P., Vlaovic, Z., Eds.; University of Zagreb, Faculty of Forestry: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019; pp. 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  147. Branowski, B.; Zabłocki, M.; Sydor, M. The Material Indices Method in the Sustainable Engineering Design Process: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Vukoje, M.; Itrić Ivanda, K.; Kulčar, R.; Marošević Dolovski, A. Spectroscopic Stability Studies of Pressure Sensitive Labels Facestock Made from Recycled Post-Consumer Waste and Agro-Industrial By-Products. Forests 2021, 12, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Jivkov, V.; Simeonova, R.; Antov, P.; Marinova, A.; Petrova, B.; Kristak, L. Structural Application of Lightweight Panels Made of Waste Cardboard and Beech Veneer. Materials 2021, 14, 5064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Bekhta, P.; Noshchenko, G.; Réh, R.; Kristak, L.; Sedliačik, J.; Antov, P.; Mirski, R.; Savov, V. Properties of Eco-Friendly Particleboards Bonded with Lignosulfonate-Urea-Formaldehyde Adhesives and PMDI as a Crosslinker. Materials 2021, 14, 4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Antov, P.; Savov, V.; Trichkov, N.; Krišťák, Ľ.; Réh, R.; Papadopoulos, A.N.; Taghiyari, H.R.; Pizzi, A.; Kunecová, D.; Pachikova, M. Properties of High-Density Fiberboard Bonded with Urea–Formaldehyde Resin and Ammonium Lignosulfonate as a Bio-Based Additive. Polymers 2021, 13, 2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Pędzik, M.; Janiszewska, D.; Rogoziński, T. Alternative Lignocellulosic Raw Materials in Particleboard Production: A Review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 174, 114162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 14 00145 g001 550
Figure 1. Subject areas of scientific articles on mycelium-based composites.
Figure 1. Subject areas of scientific articles on mycelium-based composites.
Polymers 14 00145 g001
Polymers 14 00145 g002 550
Figure 2. “Author keywords” associations in scientific articles on mycelium-based composites.
Figure 2. “Author keywords” associations in scientific articles on mycelium-based composites.
Polymers 14 00145 g002
Polymers 14 00145 g003 550
Figure 3. Annual number of patent applications according to publication year.
Figure 3. Annual number of patent applications according to publication year.
Polymers 14 00145 g003
Polymers 14 00145 g004 550
Figure 4. Shares of companies in the total number of patent applications.
Figure 4. Shares of companies in the total number of patent applications.
Polymers 14 00145 g004
Polymers 14 00145 g005 550
Figure 5. Links between countries in patent documents.
Figure 5. Links between countries in patent documents.
Polymers 14 00145 g005
Polymers 14 00145 g006 550
Figure 6. Mycelium-based material during growth (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 6. Mycelium-based material during growth (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g006
Polymers 14 00145 g007 550
Figure 7. Mycelium-based material after growth: smooth surface with (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 7. Mycelium-based material after growth: smooth surface with (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g007
Polymers 14 00145 g008 550
Figure 8. Mycelium-based composite: smooth texture, with visible fibres (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 8. Mycelium-based composite: smooth texture, with visible fibres (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g008
Polymers 14 00145 g009 550
Figure 9. Mycelium-based composite: rough texture, deriving from substrate fragmentation (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 9. Mycelium-based composite: rough texture, deriving from substrate fragmentation (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g009
Polymers 14 00145 g010 550
Figure 10. Mycelium-based composite: smooth and rough textures, combined in one object (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 10. Mycelium-based composite: smooth and rough textures, combined in one object (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g010
Polymers 14 00145 g011 550
Figure 11. Mycelium-based light fixture: (a)—with lamp on, (b)—general appearance (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 11. Mycelium-based light fixture: (a)—with lamp on, (b)—general appearance (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g011
Polymers 14 00145 g012 550
Figure 12. Mycelium-based semi-finished object (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 12. Mycelium-based semi-finished object (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g012
Polymers 14 00145 g013 550
Figure 13. Finished object: mycelium-based bowl fixed to the rough-timber torus-shape base (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 13. Finished object: mycelium-based bowl fixed to the rough-timber torus-shape base (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g013
Polymers 14 00145 g014 550
Figure 14. Coffee table with mycelium-based tabletop (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Figure 14. Coffee table with mycelium-based tabletop (design and photo: A. Bonenberg).
Polymers 14 00145 g014
Table
Table 1. The most frequently cited articles on mycelium-based composite materials according to Scopus.
Table 1. The most frequently cited articles on mycelium-based composite materials according to Scopus.
YearTitleTypeNo. of CitationsReference
2017Advanced Materials from Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Propertiesoriginal128[28]
2017Morphology and mechanics of fungal myceliumoriginal80[36]
2017Mycelium composites: A review of engineering characteristics and growth kineticsreview74[90]
2012Fungal mycelium and cotton plant materials in the manufacture of biodegradable moulded packaging material: Evaluation study of select blends of cotton by-productsoriginal74[14]
2019Fabrication factors influencing mechanical, moisture- and water-related properties of mycelium-based compositesoriginal66[52]
Table
Table 2. Parameters and aims of mycelium-based composites production in scientific research.
Table 2. Parameters and aims of mycelium-based composites production in scientific research.
FungiSubstrateProduct/ApplicationMain Results (MBC = Mycelium-Based Composites)Reference
Ganoderma sp.Cotton-based (carpel, seed hull) starch, and gypsumPackaging materialMBC meets or exceeds the characteristics of extruded polystyrene foam[14]
Not specified (possibly as [14])Rice straw, hemp seed, kenaf fibre, switch grass, sorghum fibre, cotton bur fibre, flax shiveInsulation panelOptimal performance at the noise frequency of 1000 Hz. MBC are comparable to polyurethane foam board and are better than plywood[15]
G. lucidum, P. ostreatusCellulose and potato-dextrose broth (PDB)Fibrous mycelium film The substrate should be homogeneous. The PDB in the substrate increases the stiffness of MBC[28]
T. versicolorGlass fines, wheat grains, and rice hullsFire safe mycelium biocompositesMBC are safer than the typical construction materials: producing much lower heat release rates, less smoke and CO2 and longer time to flashover. Composites with glass fines had the best fire performance[46]
T. ochracea, P. ostreatusBeech sawdust, rapeseed straw, bran. Non-woven cotton fibreBoardStraw-based mycelium composites are stiffer and less moisture-resistant than cotton based[52]
T. versicolor, P. brumalisWheat straw, rice hulls, sugarcane bagasse, blackstrap molasses, wheat grains, malt extractPure myceliumMycelium grew slow on rice hull, sugarcane bagasse and wheat straw. Liquid blackstrap molasses accelerates growth, outperforming laboratory malt extracts.[49]
T. versicolorFlax dust, flax long, wheat straw dust, wheat straw, hemp fibres and pine wood shavingsThermal insulationThe thermal conductivity and water absorption of MBCs are comparable to those of rock wool, glass wool, and extruded polystyrene. The mechanical properties depend more on the fibre arrangement than on the chemical composition of the fibres[57]
Not specified (white-rot basidiomycete mycelium)Mixture of spruce, pine, and firParticleboardCellulose nanofibers added to the substrate improved the mechanical properties of MBC by 5%[53]
P. ostreatus, F. oxysporumSodium silicatePure mycelium3% sodium silicate improve thermal stability. The P. ostreatus compared to the F. oxysporum beter improve material thermal stability (higher decomposition temperature and residual weight, lower degradation rate)[59,84]
G. lucidum, P. ostreatusClay, sawdust, bleached and unbleached cellulosePrinted cylindersThe mycelium improves the 3D printing (better water resistance, material stiffness and surface hardness) [73]
Table
Table 3. List of scientific review publications for mycelium-based composites for art, architecture, and interior design.
Table 3. List of scientific review publications for mycelium-based composites for art, architecture, and interior design.
YearReferenceNo. of Cited DocumentsNo. of Citations in ScopusMain Findings
2016[88]3222A production cost model is described which includes labour, material and overhead costs for structured sandwich products produced from MBCs.
2017[90]170741. MBCs are kind of biopolymer foam, but most studies admit that mechanical performance can be improved in the future. 2. Current use is limited to the packaging and chosen construction applications. New applications have been proposed (acoustic dampers, super absorbents, paper, textiles, structural and electronic parts).
2018[91]21341. MBCs can be used for a variety of purposes with the advantage of a lower cost and the better disposal than polystyrene that is an environmental problem. 2. The biggest challenge is the negative public perception of fungus-derived products.
2019[94]1126MBCs are profitable renewable and degradable material and have the potential to replace petroleum-based materials.
2019[92]10837Improvement in know-how is expected to improve the mechanical properties and to standardize the productive process, whereas insulation and thermal properties already have shown competitive results.
2020[86]58211. There is a correlation between raw input material composition and final material properties. 2. MBCs have implications for sustainable architecture and products. 3. The unique aesthetics of MBCs should be further explored and more clearly identified.
2020[96]80441. Fungal biorefinery upcycles by-products into cheap and sustainable composite materials. 2. Can replace foam, timber and plastic insulation, door cores, panels, flooring, furnishings. 3. Low density and thermal conductivity, high acoustic absorption, and fire safety. 4. MBCs are suitable as thermal and acoustic insulation foams.
2021[98]7761. MBCs are more suitable for thermal and acoustic insulation than synthetic foam and wood fibres. 2. MBCs are stiff, lightweight and biodegradable, thus are an alternative to petroleum-based packaging materials.
2021[101]1010The process of engineering affects the properties of MBCs. Bioreactor designs such as tray, packed bed and millilitre reactors, influence of mycelium growth conditions and strategies for controlling mycelium microenvironment are discussed to allow optimal process development.
2021[102]11801. MBCs are advantageous as packaging materials with sufficient acoustic, and thermal insulation, slightly worse than expanded polystyrene. 2. The standardized process to produce an optimized material property has yet to be identified, production is less standardized than conventional engineering materials, and it is not clear how to customize the substrates for a particular species of fungi to optimize the composite mechanics.
2021[103]8001. MBCs support a circular economy. 2. Finding the ways of enhancing their physicochemical properties will expand the application areas. 3. The properties of MBCs are competitive with those of synthetic polymers used in construction, interior architecture, and other industries.
2021[104]942With the wide variety of fungal species and substrates available, MBCs can improve environmental sustainability of many industrial products.
Table
Table 4. Granted patents.
Table 4. Granted patents.
Order No.Patent No., Application Year–Granted Year, ReferenceDetails
1US 9,485,917 B2, 2007–2016, [108]ED (Ecovative Design LLC). Method for producing grown materials and products made thereby
2US 8,001,719 B2, 2009–2011, [109]ED. Method for producing rapidly renewable chitinous material using fungal fruiting bodies and product made thereby
3US 8,313,939 B2, 2010–2012, [110]FGT, ACH (Ford Global Technologies LLC, Automotive Components Holdings LLC). A method of making a moulded automotive part with a liquid fungal mixture.
4US 8,298,810 B2, 2010–2012, [111]
5US 8,227,233 B2 [112]
6US 8,227,224 B2 [113]FGT, ACH. Method of making moulded part comprising mycelium coupled to mechanical device
7US 8,227,225 B2 [114]FGT, ACH. Plasticized mycelium composite and method
8US 8,283,153 B2 [115]FGT, ACH. Mycelium structures containing nanocomposite materials and method
9US 8,298,809 B2 [116]FGT, ACH. Method of making a hardened elongate structure from mycelium
10CN 102,329,512 B [117]Ford Global Technologies LLC. The sheet stock mycelium of cutting and method
11US 9,410,116 B2, 2011–2016, [118]Mycoworks Inc. building materials
12US 9,879,219 B2, 2012–2018, [119]ED. A method of producing a chitinous polymer derived from fungal growth
13CA 2,834,095 C, 2012–2018, [120]ED. Dehydrated mycelium panels.
14US 10,154,627 B2, 2013–2018, [121]ED. Growing mycological biomaterials in tools that are consumed or enveloped during the growth process
15FR 3,006,693 B1 2013–2016, [122]Menuiseries Elva. A method of producing a composite material based on natural fibres inoculated with mycelium and parts obtained with this method
16US 9,253,889 B2 2012–2016 [123]ED. Sheet built-in an electrical circuit
17US 9,085,763 B2, 2013–2015, [124]ED. Production dehydrated mycelium elements to form tissue morphology using Pycnoporus cinnabarinus
18AU 2013/251269 B2, 2013–2015, [125] ED. Self-supporting composite material
19US 10,144,149 B2, 2014–2018, [126] ED. Stiff mycelium bound part and method of producing stiff mycelium bound parts
20US 9,394,512 B2, 2015–2016, [127] ED. Method for growing mycological materials
21US 9,469,838 B2, 2015–2016, [128]Mycoworks Inc. Set of mycelium-based materials with wood timber
22CN 105,292,758 B 2016–2017, [129] Shenzhen Zeqingyuan Technology Dev Service Co Ltd., Univ Sichuan Agricultural. Production method for biomass packing material
23AU 2015/271912 B2, 2015–2020, [130]ED. Method of manufacturing a stiff engineered composite
24US 9,914,906 B2, 2016–2018, [131]ED. Process for solid-state cultivation of mycelium on a lignocellulose substrate
25CN 106,148,199 B, 2016–2019, [132]Jiangxi University of Technology. Agricultural waste-based mycelium material with good a cushion performance and mechanical property
26CN 106,633,989 B, 2016–2019, [133]Shenzhen Zeqingyuan Technology Development Service Co Ltd. Using bagasse as fungi-based biomass packaging material of major ingredient and preparation method thereof
27US 10,604,734 B2, 2017–2020, [134]University of Alaska Anchorage. Thermal insulation material from mycelium and forestry by-products
28KR 102,256,335 B1, 2019–2021, [135] Lee Beom Geun. Eco-friendly packing materials comprising mushroom mycelium and the process for the preparation thereof
29US 11,015,059 B2, 2019–2021, [107]Bolt Threads Inc. Composite material, and methods for production thereof
Table
Table 5. Most influenced patent documents.
Table 5. Most influenced patent documents.
No.Patent DocumentExtended Patent Family SizeNumber of Citations of the Patent Document in Other Patent Documents
1US 2008/0145577 A1 “Method for producing grown materials and products made thereby” [106]4344
2US 2012/0270302 A1 “Method for Making Dehydrated Mycelium Elements and Product Made Thereby” [137]154
3WO 2019/099474 A1 “Increased Homogeneity of Mycological Biopolymer Grown into Void Space” [138]128
4US 2012/0135504 A1 “Method for Producing Fungus Structures” [139]1120
5US 2018/0282529 A1 “Solution Based Post-Processing Methods for Mycological Biopolymer Material and Mycological Product Made Thereby” [140]95
6US 2020/0024577 A1 “Method of Producing a Mycological Product and Product Made Thereby” [141]74
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sydor, M.; Bonenberg, A.; Doczekalska, B.; Cofta, G. Mycelium-Based Composites in Art, Architecture, and Interior Design: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010145

AMA Style

Sydor M, Bonenberg A, Doczekalska B, Cofta G. Mycelium-Based Composites in Art, Architecture, and Interior Design: A Review. Polymers. 2022; 14(1):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010145

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sydor, Maciej, Agata Bonenberg, Beata Doczekalska, and Grzegorz Cofta. 2022. "Mycelium-Based Composites in Art, Architecture, and Interior Design: A Review" Polymers 14, no. 1: 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010145

APA Style

Sydor, M., Bonenberg, A., Doczekalska, B., & Cofta, G. (2022). Mycelium-Based Composites in Art, Architecture, and Interior Design: A Review. Polymers, 14(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010145

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop